Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Questions (not edit requests)
>
Getting caught up with new books
date
newest »
newest »
The way I go back is to change the page number in the URL field.At the end of the URL on the second page you will see the number 2 and then you can change it to go much further.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
There is no way to edit a topic title to include DONE. Someone has added an idea in the Ideas section of Help to allow librarians to do that if you want to vote on it.
Ooh yes I want to vote on that! Can you link me to that post? Thanks!
Here are two suggestions: https://help.goodreads.com/s/suggesti...
https://help.goodreads.com/s/suggesti...
I think a checkbox to mark a post done that we could submit would also be helpful if they wouldn't want us to edit a topic title.
Michele wrote: "Ooh yes I want to vote on that! Can you link me to that post? Thanks!"There is no way to vote no, so the results will be skewed. I don't want anyone other than myself or staff to be able to edit a thread that I have started.
Staff, however, could institute a process to move completed threads into a completed threads folder. Or they could make separate folders for January, February, etc. Goodreads, having created a monster with this policy, could do a great deal to make things easier for librarians.
Just to note: If someone can mark [Done] on a thread you created, they could change the title to whatever they'd like it to read. Do you want that?
Not anyone, just librarians. But if that's too much power, then a little "Done" tickbox that one could check, with the caveat that the OP could un-tick it if they thought it wasn't done. There just really needs to be a better way to find requests that haven't yet been completed.
I agree there needs to be a better way. My suggestion has been and will continue to be for Staff to make a folder archiving those requests that have been completed so that the ones left can be more easily discerned. I don’t want anyone - not librarians or anyone - to be able to edit titles of threads I’ve opened, and I don’t want the responsibility of editing others.
What if it wasn't a true title edit, but a check box we could mark so staff would know what threads to archive? That way it's easier than them having to check every single thread all the time. It would even be something that if we come across a thread that was completed, but not commented on, one of us could check the box.
Yes I think that is a great idea Miriam.
I think staff should reconsider this entire policy. They have stopped members from being able to add valid books while they're importing items that are not valid books.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
(and I think bundles, too and maybe other stuff, like blank books, but I'm not positive of this latter)
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "(and I think bundles, too and maybe other stuff, like blank books, but I'm not positive of this latter)"Yes, and also proofs. Plus the records added for actual books are woefully incomplete.
Yeah, I think GR's definition of "book" is waaaaaaaay too broad :)
Emily wrote: "The way I go back is to change the page number in the URL field.At the end of the URL on the second page you will see the number 2 and then you can change it to go much further."
Great tip Emily! Thank you!
I wish there was a document with all these little tips and tricks.
Now I collect these handy facts here and there.
Karin wrote: "Great tip Emily! Thank you!I wish there was a document with all these little tips and tricks.
Now I collect these handy facts here and there."
That page number appears in the URL of many types of pages on Goodreads. It isn't always at the end of the URL. For example, I use it sometimes to navigate on MY Books, and also when I'm doing searches for title words that need to be removed.
I'm frustrated about that too Michele. I started on Aug 15 as a librarian (p 500+) Now I have already hit Sept 24 (p 1250+). I concentrate on the non-english books and the English books I bump to 2023. All those unanswered request....
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "That page number appears in the URL of many types of pages on Goodreads..."Yeah, I just do it directly from the second page in the adding new books folder or I would get confused.
lethe wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "(and I think bundles, too and maybe other stuff, like blank books, but I'm not positive of this latter)"Yes, and also proofs. Plus the records added for actual books ar..."
and often just nonsense. came around some dutch books in the last days under "unknown author" when they actually had author names but where just imported that way (even amazon had the name listed)
The info on them was very little (only title, unknown author, isbn, language) - could luckily fix them because there were 2 threads asking about them
Michele wrote: "Yeah, I think GR's definition of "book" is waaaaaaaay too broad :)"My weirdest one so far: a sweatshirt. With ISBN. Makes me wonder what else will come down the pipe.
There is an author who keeps asking us to take pants off [her profile].
Michele wrote: "So I went into the "Add a new book" folder, sorted by number of posts (since most topics with only 1 post are ones that haven't yet been done) and then paged backwards to see how many there are of ..."Did you see it, there is a new folder (Archived) Added books/editions.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
I'm so glad!!! :-)
Karin wrote: "Michele wrote: "So I went into the "Add a new book" folder, sorted by number of posts (since most topics with only 1 post are ones that haven't yet been done) and then paged backwards to see how ma..."Yay! This is something I suggested. I'm glad they saw the wisdom!
Abcdarian wrote: "My weirdest one so far: a sweatshirt. With ISBN. Makes me wonder what else will come down the pipe."When I'm bored, I search for non-book items in the search bar. It's...quite something...how often dresses, pants, mugs, jackets, candles, and so on show up.
I tried sending Support a suggestion to ask that they put some filters into the auto-import system to block items that had formats like "clothing," "misc. office supplies," "diary," and "puzzle," but I got an automated email telling me that it wouldn't be followed up on.
Jacklyn says she will be archiving requests from the first 15-20 pages of the Adding Books folder.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
OK. A small start. But that doesn't begin to address the fulfilled requests.
I see requests that have been fulfilled on page 100 and further back. Honestly, I don't understand why this Adding Books procedure has been so mismanaged.
Every little bit helps. Hopefully Jacklyn can appoint other moderators to help her.
Karin wrote: "Every little bit helps. Hopefully Jacklyn can appoint other moderators to help her."There are other moderators.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.One of my favorite quotes: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
Dobby wrote: "It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.One of my favorite quotes: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
Yes, indeed.
Why didn't they look at the number of books added daily before they made this decision? Just for a start.
Dobby wrote:One of my favorite quotes: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
Great quote! Very useful for my children. :-) LOL
As I'm currently going through my unread topics since end of july and cleared some specific dates first to not see them (view spoiler) yes, 15-20 seems to be a bit of an understatement.Wondering if I ever will reach the general "new records needed" date or if opening and closing thousands of threads will be always too slow. (or my mouse dead until then)
Found a few older requests that were not done but as of yet, september seems to be pretty much done, at least.
☕ Lachgas ♿ wrote: "Found a few older requests that were not done but as of yet, september seems to be pretty much done, at least."
Well done!
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "☕ Lachgas ♿ wrote: "Found a few older requests that were not done but as of yet, september seems to be pretty much done, at least."
Well done!"
except the ones I did not want to do (fanfic for example) or where just posts in a foreign script with nothing really identifying to work with. or the hundreth edition of some old books without isbn (as I would not search through tons of editions to check if it really needs to be added).
But from around 26th july until somewhere on 26th september it were more than 400 pages of unread threads (of course some page counts, covers, book issues but the vast majority was "adding new books" - currently on page 1790 of my "unreads" started with 2289 days ago)
400 pages times 30 threads per page = 12,000 unread requests for that 2 month period of time.And that's why this process is such a stinking mess.
This is really putting me off Goodreads. I was removed as a librarian years ago over disagreements on adding policies and covers. Since then what I can do as a non librarian has become increasingly restrictive, and now it's basically nothing.I would add that when asked originally, I did try to follow the guidance on alternate cover editions, and didn't change others' work, But as a reader in the UK, I did want to be able to create records of my books showing covers, page numbering etc. I got very frustrated by things like all editions of a book having the US cover added to them, and books being added with blank covers and never updated.
There simply aren't enough volunteers with enough time now to add everyone's books, and thanks for those who have responded to my requests.
But there still seem to be librarians who feel free to merge books like different short story selections ore create entries with very incomplete information. And why are people who add items which are not books or book related being allowed to carry on while readers actually trying to make information more complete and accurate for everyone get kicked off.
Good luck to current librarians still trying to work in the current system.
Well, a lot of the people adding non book items are now removed from adding, because they are not librarians (there's new bots now in town which do import quite some)And if librarians do it still against policy they might lose their status at some point - as in the past for people not sticking to the GR rules.
I don't think there are too few librarians in general - but too few doing more than their own shelf stuff and being active in the Librarians Group - as that was never a requirement. I do know quite a few (german ones) never bothering with the group at all.
Well, obviously I'm here. But I do few requests. I'm not interested in adding books, especially with the mess now. When between my own projects, I stop by the Book Issues folder. My primary interest is Awards, but too many of the awards being requested are for awards that I think shouldn't be on here anyway.So, I have my own projects ...
Luci wrote: " But as a reader in the UK, I did want to be able to create records of my books showing covers, page numbering etc. I got very frustrated by things like all editions of a book having the US cover added to them"This shouldn't have happened. UK editions would have their own ISBNs and covers. So I'm not sure how there was a policy conflict.
Luci wrote: "But there still seem to be librarians who feel free to merge books like different short story selections ore create entries with very incomplete information. And why are people who add items which are not books or book related being allowed to carry on while readers actually trying to make information more complete and accurate for everyone get kicked off.."Short stories never published separately are not considered books for Goodreads purposes.
If items have been added by a librarian (and not imported from Amazon) that are not books, since June 2022, then Support should address it as it is against policy. Unfortunately there are "rogue" librarians and some things are added by mistake.
If someone adds an item lacking information then it should be addressed in the group or through Support.
We all share in the frustration of the huge backlog. I hope Goodreads' efforts to lessen it will come sooner rather than later.
And so you all shamed me. ;-) and I have responded to an old request.
Emily quoted me: "But there still seem to be librarians who feel free to merge books like different short story selections ore create entries with very incomplete information. And why are people who add items which are not books or book related being allowed to carry on while readers actually trying to make information more complete and accurate for everyone get kicked off.."
And responded:
"Short stories never published separately are not considered books for Goodreads purposes."
And nor they should be, but I'm referring to confusions over, for example, different selections of short stories by a classic author. For example, there are selections of short stories by Katherine Mansfield published by Penguin, Oxford University Press (I think there may be two different selections several decades apart) and Text Classics. Also Everyman. At different times over the last 100 years editors will have made different selections, so the OUP and Text Classics books don't contain exactly the same stories or content (though I would expect some overlap), but they are both "Selected Stories" so someone has assumed they are the same book.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "And so you all shamed me. ;-) and I have responded to an old request."I don't see why you should be shamed. I just find the idea that Goodreads users are forced to rely on volunteers to try and sort out the mess and add books a bit problematic. I don't think I did much adding for other people's requests, but to "do" my own books/reading in a way that would be useful for others reading the same books. I really did try not to trample on anyone's toes or breach the rules.
I continue to use Goodreads only because a lot of online friends met on other sites, and some real life ones too, use it and it's a chance to see what others I know are reading, and to see what people I don't know, who have read the same books or ones I'm interested in finding out more about, make of something. The scale of GR does offer a range of views on many newish books. (There is less information on a lot of older stuff like my (mostly) 1970s children's books and obscure fiction and non fiction from past decades (often not reprinted).
I rarely read newish stuff - or at least I think I mostly read older stuff. I have no trouble finding out about them.
Mod
I'd like to encourage Librarians to prompt members to change thread titles to state 'done' in the 'Adding New Books & Editions' folder. This will allow us to identify threads to be archived, and could allow for a faster solution in the future.
I do understand that the 'Adding New Books & Editions' folder is a bit overwhelming at present (I'm in there most days too!). The Amazon import should resolve a large portion of these requests.
P.S. If you need my attention in the Group, please remember there is no 'k' in my name, i.e. Jaclyn rather than Jacklyn. 😊
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
There are 522 pages . Now some it turns out have been done, despite having only one post, but the vast majority haven't.
Agh.
Does anyone have tips or tricks that speed up or streamline the creation of new books? Has anyone used macros, for example? Is there a way that I can edit a topic title to add "DONE" when I find ones that have been done?